by the best World Series this side of 2001. Hoping Roger Angell still has enough left in the tank to give us a New Yorker post-mortem. Happy to see Charlie Pierce manning the Esquire politics blog. Frustrated to be trudging through ... snow?!? this morning. Warmed by MelissaCzarnik's tweet that "A Bus full of kids just went by the
October 30, 2011
Thrilled
by the best World Series this side of 2001. Hoping Roger Angell still has enough left in the tank to give us a New Yorker post-mortem. Happy to see Charlie Pierce manning the Esquire politics blog. Frustrated to be trudging through ... snow?!? this morning. Warmed by MelissaCzarnik's tweet that "A Bus full of kids just went by the
October 26, 2011
From Dependence to Independence: Language Acquisition
How can I help my students move away from dependence and toward interdependence and independence?
That's the question I touched on in an earlier post.
The adult immigrants I've worked with constantly talk up the American Dream: they came here to get a better life, better job, better future for their kids. Now, we can quibble about how realistic that dream is. But to help them move toward it means helping them feel more independent and have the skills to be more independent.
How do we do that in an adult ESOL classroom? I see at least three areas: Language Acquisition, Classroom Culture, and Community-Building. Today, I'll focus on language.
Stoking Independence in Language Acquisition: There's a concept called the "Atlas Complex," in which language teachers tend to prance around theatrically, make themselves the center of attention, and constantly treat students to a torrent of corrections and insider hints about the language to be learned. There are definitely times when the teacher should explicitly model things and lead the class. Indeed, I could write a long post on the essentials of teacher-directed task of comprehensible input. I did some of that every day as an ESOL teacher. But in general it's much more effective to move students toward talking and using the language themselves, once they're ready. Some ideas on that front:
That's the question I touched on in an earlier post.
The adult immigrants I've worked with constantly talk up the American Dream: they came here to get a better life, better job, better future for their kids. Now, we can quibble about how realistic that dream is. But to help them move toward it means helping them feel more independent and have the skills to be more independent.
How do we do that in an adult ESOL classroom? I see at least three areas: Language Acquisition, Classroom Culture, and Community-Building. Today, I'll focus on language.
Stoking Independence in Language Acquisition: There's a concept called the "Atlas Complex," in which language teachers tend to prance around theatrically, make themselves the center of attention, and constantly treat students to a torrent of corrections and insider hints about the language to be learned. There are definitely times when the teacher should explicitly model things and lead the class. Indeed, I could write a long post on the essentials of teacher-directed task of comprehensible input. I did some of that every day as an ESOL teacher. But in general it's much more effective to move students toward talking and using the language themselves, once they're ready. Some ideas on that front:
- Correct where it makes sense to correct. Now, I'm generally a believer in Doug Lemov's concept of "Right is Right," but the limit of that approach in language acquisition is that overcorrecting students can actually impede language learning for speakers at certain levels. More broadly it stifles students' sense that they are co-creators of the classroom experience, a key ingredient of a lively language class. So be purposeful about when you provide correction. I started every class with an active language warm-up (5-8 minutes), and never corrected, because I prioritized getting the juices flowing and didn't want to shut students down emotionally by jumping in. In structured vocabulary and grammar lessons, I did correct, and early--I would rotate and monitor, take notes on trends, and provide feedback. When we did activities like having students analyze a problem in their community, it was about content, not perfect language use. There, I focused on building higher-order thinking skills and let incorrect usages slide. There's a time for correctness, and a time for fluency. Maximize opportunities for students to be comfortable and talking--the more they own the language, the more they're building skills to survive the real world.
- Correct in a "least restrictive" way. The special-education concept of "least restrictive environment" is useful in ESOL, too. Students will depend less on you and build their own interdependence and independence if given chances to find corrections themselves. If a situation arises where students correctness matters, and a student says, Does she has a fever? consider moving through this taxonomy to help them find the correct statement:
- Indirect correction: Say, Does she ... (drawing out the pause, making it obvious there's a correction needed) or say, Does she has? This prompts the student to reconsider and try again. If that fails, give her another chance, then try ...
- Peer correction: Say, Can you ask a classmate? or Can XX help you? or Can you check your book? If that fails, try ...
- Guided direct correction: Say, Does she has or Does she have? That final one almost always does the trick. It's also a form of comprehensible input.
- As an alternative in some activities, try delayed feedback. If many students are making a mistake, put the options on the board, stop class, and go over them. Nobody feels called out, everybody who needed help benefits, and you've made the error explicit.
- That said, You don't need to hover. Often, students will correct each other--if you've created a culture of collaboration (more on that in a later post). This builds interdependence beautifully.
- And pick your battles. Even in an activity where correct speech is desirable, nobody wants constant correction. Break down someone's emotional strength and you've broken down their ability to learn--and especially to learn a language. Space out corrections. Keep a pulse on who's receptive to what kind of correction. Depends on the situation.
- Up the student talking time (STT). Students learn more language when they work with each other, ask questions, negotiate speech. Few things are as important to linking language learning in class to language use in the world as this step. There are lots of ways to structure a class to do it. Here's one simple technique I've found success with: Two Lines:
- Students stand up and form two lines, facing each other.
- They do whatever the speaking activity is with the person they're facing--model it first!
- The teacher moves alongside the line, listening.
- After a minute or two, student pairs perform. Offer corrections if need be. the person at the end of one line goes to the other end, and everybody moves down a step, thus forming new partners.
- Students continue the task.
- What's good about this? By changing partners, students hear a range of accents. That's a life skill. They're exposed to more speakers who produce more variety of language, which is good for learning new words. Errors have a better shot at natural correction in a classmate pairing. And it's movement, a break from desks.
October 24, 2011
How Much, or How?
Ooh boy, Nicholas Kristof writing about all the things I care about!
He gets right to the point about how little public funding goes to children under age 5. And to how early investments in children actually have documented cost-benefit pay-offs.
Kristof's also refreshingly frank in taking on Head Start questions. He admits what we've long known, that some gains (e.g. IQ) for kids who go through HS wear off quickly. But he points out that "the former Head Start participants are significantly less likely than siblings to repeat grades, to be diagnosed with a learning disability, or to suffer the kind of poor health associated with poverty." Those are really important measures, especially when you consider how repeating grades sets kids up to drop out.
His closing point is: we can't afford not to fund early childhood. But it's not just a question of how much funding early-childhood gets. It's a question of how programs are run.
Problem is, quality of day-care varies a lot. And overall, the picture isn't pretty--some programs are excellent, others terrible, most in-between. That variation happens even within a government-funded program like Head Start, not to mention in the ever-growing area of private day-care. Are play areas safe? Are teachers well-trained? Are adult-child interactions engaging? These are not side questions, they are the main questions.
Dumping a whole lot of money into early-childhood without ways of ensuring programs are actually well-run won't do much for the disadvantaged kids Kristof cares about. Kids from tough backgrounds need great programs, not just more programs.
He gets right to the point about how little public funding goes to children under age 5. And to how early investments in children actually have documented cost-benefit pay-offs.
Kristof's also refreshingly frank in taking on Head Start questions. He admits what we've long known, that some gains (e.g. IQ) for kids who go through HS wear off quickly. But he points out that "the former Head Start participants are significantly less likely than siblings to repeat grades, to be diagnosed with a learning disability, or to suffer the kind of poor health associated with poverty." Those are really important measures, especially when you consider how repeating grades sets kids up to drop out.
His closing point is: we can't afford not to fund early childhood. But it's not just a question of how much funding early-childhood gets. It's a question of how programs are run.
Problem is, quality of day-care varies a lot. And overall, the picture isn't pretty--some programs are excellent, others terrible, most in-between. That variation happens even within a government-funded program like Head Start, not to mention in the ever-growing area of private day-care. Are play areas safe? Are teachers well-trained? Are adult-child interactions engaging? These are not side questions, they are the main questions.
Dumping a whole lot of money into early-childhood without ways of ensuring programs are actually well-run won't do much for the disadvantaged kids Kristof cares about. Kids from tough backgrounds need great programs, not just more programs.
October 20, 2011
The Weakened Links
Trying to fund linkages is impossible, because it we'd have to deal with too many funding streams--federal, state, and local.
That's what staff members from a foundation that fights poverty in a large U.S. city told me when I asked them if they provide funding to help programs link together with other ones--not just drive funding to single organizations.
Research shows that helping poor people through interventions works best if one intervention leads to another. Nonprofits are notorious for protecting their turf and avoiding collaboration. We're never gonna solve tough problems unless we solve them together. And we're never gonna work together unless we can line up our dollars.
By the way, this was a major foundation with a lot of pull. If they step back from linkage-funding with their hands in the air, that says something.
That's what staff members from a foundation that fights poverty in a large U.S. city told me when I asked them if they provide funding to help programs link together with other ones--not just drive funding to single organizations.
Research shows that helping poor people through interventions works best if one intervention leads to another. Nonprofits are notorious for protecting their turf and avoiding collaboration. We're never gonna solve tough problems unless we solve them together. And we're never gonna work together unless we can line up our dollars.
By the way, this was a major foundation with a lot of pull. If they step back from linkage-funding with their hands in the air, that says something.
October 17, 2011
Shout #1: From Dependence to Independence in the ESOL Classroom
The home-cooked arepa. The colorful pencil, offered during break. The stuffed doll brought back from Puerto Rico: There was nothing more touching than when one of my adult ESOL students took the time to give me a gift.
After a year of teaching, under almost all circumstances, I stopped accepting them.
Dependence. My students--mostly Latino--had a major cultural predilection to it. Growing up, they stood up when their teachers entered the room, and called them maestros. In the U.S., they were heavily dependent on the social-service safety net. They were women of color taught by a white male. If they had jobs, most worked as housekeepers, where they busted butt and kept their mouths shut. Everywhere they looked, the power differential was against them.
But for immigrants, any pathway to success in the U.S. must be a path away from dependence and toward independence.
Every time students asked me for my opinion during a class discussion. Every time they asked me for my perfect pronunciation. Every time they waited for my approving smile after giving me a slice of cake--built their affinity for me. It filtered their class experiences through me. It made me the source of All Language Knowledge. It made them rely on ... me.
Are there times to accept gifts? Absolutely, and I'll discuss that more in a future post. Are there times to jump in with a correct pronunciation? Sure. In the classroom, is some reliance on the teacher a good thing? Yes, at least at first.
But my students came in with tons of dependence, and didn't need any more from me, that's for certain. So with every subsequent decision, I started asking myself one question: How will this help my students become more interdependent and independent?
It's a question all of us ESOL teachers should be asking ourselves every day.
After a year of teaching, under almost all circumstances, I stopped accepting them.
Dependence. My students--mostly Latino--had a major cultural predilection to it. Growing up, they stood up when their teachers entered the room, and called them maestros. In the U.S., they were heavily dependent on the social-service safety net. They were women of color taught by a white male. If they had jobs, most worked as housekeepers, where they busted butt and kept their mouths shut. Everywhere they looked, the power differential was against them.
But for immigrants, any pathway to success in the U.S. must be a path away from dependence and toward independence.
Every time students asked me for my opinion during a class discussion. Every time they asked me for my perfect pronunciation. Every time they waited for my approving smile after giving me a slice of cake--built their affinity for me. It filtered their class experiences through me. It made me the source of All Language Knowledge. It made them rely on ... me.
Are there times to accept gifts? Absolutely, and I'll discuss that more in a future post. Are there times to jump in with a correct pronunciation? Sure. In the classroom, is some reliance on the teacher a good thing? Yes, at least at first.
But my students came in with tons of dependence, and didn't need any more from me, that's for certain. So with every subsequent decision, I started asking myself one question: How will this help my students become more interdependent and independent?
It's a question all of us ESOL teachers should be asking ourselves every day.
October 14, 2011
How Do You Have a Mission and Still Be a Dreamer?
... or, how do you get nitty-gritty and fuzzy all at once?
Dan Pallotta had a post a few months ago urging missions, not just "mission statements":
The four most important things: 1) Everyday language skills, like how to talk to the doctor. 2) Academic behaviors and skills, like arriving on time to class and organizing a binder. 3) Setting goals that are realistic and achievable. 4) Links to "next steps," i.e. the program they could continue on to after graduating from mine.
I talked about them constantly. I would even say, "I'm on a mission to help them ..." And I focused like a laser on making sure they happened. Did they happen? You bet they did. I wouldn't let them not happen.
But if you focus like a laser, how do you remember all the other things you care about? One class, we tried to get students job placements, and failed. We got them more job-ready, but they didn't have enough English to do more. I saw how hard it was for my immigrant students to change certain parenting habits. I saw how even the many services my human-services agency provided--food stamps applications to immigration assistance--weren't enough to move most families out of poverty. I constantly wanted to expand to more levels of ESOL, but without expanding staff, it wasn't realistic.
I was so focused on what I could do and had to do--and how to do it better. That was the mission.
How did I keep dreaming about solving the bigger problems? I sat on the porch on summer Saturdays reading about language acquisition, or the Harlem Children's Zone. I spent a couple months visiting other programs doing similar but slightly different things. I schlepped to trainings, networked, debated ideas over food and beer. I piloted a bunch of ideas in my program--some successes, some failures. Any way to increase the flow of ideas into my brain--and classroom.
But ultimately I found the day-to-day work, in a one-man program in a small agency, was so demanding that it shut off the really big dreaming. I moved on.
Wherever I land next, I hope I can answer the question, "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" with a resounding "Yes." I hope my workplace makes it easy to do that. I hope my colleagues are asking themselves the same question. Nonprofits must focus on doing excellent work every day. It is about the daily impact. It is, at some level, about the next grant. But it has to be about dreaming, too.
Dan Pallotta had a post a few months ago urging missions, not just "mission statements":
Don't waste your advertising space on your mission statement. Use the space to tell people what you've accomplished, or what amazing thing your product will do — use it to show them what mission you're actually on.And from Steve Jobs's Stanford speech, where he asked himself:
"If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.When I ran an adult ESOL program, I came up with a clear mission statement outlining exactly what my students would get out of it.
The four most important things: 1) Everyday language skills, like how to talk to the doctor. 2) Academic behaviors and skills, like arriving on time to class and organizing a binder. 3) Setting goals that are realistic and achievable. 4) Links to "next steps," i.e. the program they could continue on to after graduating from mine.
I talked about them constantly. I would even say, "I'm on a mission to help them ..." And I focused like a laser on making sure they happened. Did they happen? You bet they did. I wouldn't let them not happen.
But if you focus like a laser, how do you remember all the other things you care about? One class, we tried to get students job placements, and failed. We got them more job-ready, but they didn't have enough English to do more. I saw how hard it was for my immigrant students to change certain parenting habits. I saw how even the many services my human-services agency provided--food stamps applications to immigration assistance--weren't enough to move most families out of poverty. I constantly wanted to expand to more levels of ESOL, but without expanding staff, it wasn't realistic.
I was so focused on what I could do and had to do--and how to do it better. That was the mission.
How did I keep dreaming about solving the bigger problems? I sat on the porch on summer Saturdays reading about language acquisition, or the Harlem Children's Zone. I spent a couple months visiting other programs doing similar but slightly different things. I schlepped to trainings, networked, debated ideas over food and beer. I piloted a bunch of ideas in my program--some successes, some failures. Any way to increase the flow of ideas into my brain--and classroom.
But ultimately I found the day-to-day work, in a one-man program in a small agency, was so demanding that it shut off the really big dreaming. I moved on.
Wherever I land next, I hope I can answer the question, "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" with a resounding "Yes." I hope my workplace makes it easy to do that. I hope my colleagues are asking themselves the same question. Nonprofits must focus on doing excellent work every day. It is about the daily impact. It is, at some level, about the next grant. But it has to be about dreaming, too.
October 12, 2011
NCLB Stew
Piece at the Times about Tom Harkin's NCLB re-write. Still waiting for more analysis, but I was struck by this quotation from Grover Whitehurst:
The idea that simply raising motivation to get improve achievement was sufficient to get the process going failed on two fronts. First, it left states to fix, fiddle, and nip data to "show" proficiency. Second, it's proposals for creating better options for kids were a) tutoring and b) transfer. Leaving aside whether this is actually an effective way to raise all boats, only tiny, tiny numbers of kids took those up. NCLB didn't deal much with capacity of teachers and schools, nor with good fallback plans.
Harkin's bill may not be stellar--I for one am interested to learn more--but it's slipshod to hold up NCLB as the original, responsible alternative.
“Harkin’s bill would return control to the state departments of education and the local school districts, and they’re the ones that got us into the mess that No Child was designed to fix,” said Grover J. Whitehurst, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who headed the Department of Education’s research wing under President Bush. “Districts and states have not been effective in delivering quality education to children from low socioeconomic backgrounds, so why should we think they’ll be effective this time around?”Okay, okay, states and districts haven't always taken the lead in promoting achievement. Or rarely. We can debate that. But it's not like NCLB had much to say about instruction and achievement, either, except to set pie-in-the-sky goals of universal proficiency by 2014 and impose punitive consequences (that were actually pretty easy to escape through the "other" option of school turnaround) for those not on track.
The idea that simply raising motivation to get improve achievement was sufficient to get the process going failed on two fronts. First, it left states to fix, fiddle, and nip data to "show" proficiency. Second, it's proposals for creating better options for kids were a) tutoring and b) transfer. Leaving aside whether this is actually an effective way to raise all boats, only tiny, tiny numbers of kids took those up. NCLB didn't deal much with capacity of teachers and schools, nor with good fallback plans.
Harkin's bill may not be stellar--I for one am interested to learn more--but it's slipshod to hold up NCLB as the original, responsible alternative.
October 10, 2011
ConStrived?
I had a fascinating conversation Friday with a self-described "instigator" who's helping lead a replication of the STRIVE Together program of the Cincinnati area elsewhere in the Midwest.
Such organizations are modeled loosely off the Harlem Children's Zone and attempt to create cradle-to-career pathways for kids in disadvantaged areas. These Midwestern models differ from HCZ in that they are larger than 100 square blocks and promote collaboration among existing agencies. And their funding is different--I mean, not everyone can be hand-in-glove with Wall Street, right?
Here's what else the Other Midwest Plan has going for it: business, community, and school-district buy-in. Focus on STEM subjects: science, technology, math. Accountability measures from top-to-bottom, including managed instruction and continuous improvement plans. Use of great practices from across the country. Assurance of on-the-ground quality, through plenty of support and professional development for teachers, out-of-school time programs for kids, inclusion of volunteer labor. Emphasis on kindergarten readiness. I took the devil's-advocate pose over and over, and got pretty satisfying answers back.
When what started as a 20-minute call ended at an hour, I thought: Wow, this Other Midwest Plan sounds great! ...
... But is it too good to be true?
The rapid dissemination of the cradle-to-career idea (which I've written about before) is encouraging, insofar as I think it's a good way to frame the movement to achieve legitimate outcomes for kids from tough backgrounds. But it's also a new path full of booby-traps.
A few questions that I think must be addressed:
Such organizations are modeled loosely off the Harlem Children's Zone and attempt to create cradle-to-career pathways for kids in disadvantaged areas. These Midwestern models differ from HCZ in that they are larger than 100 square blocks and promote collaboration among existing agencies. And their funding is different--I mean, not everyone can be hand-in-glove with Wall Street, right?
Here's what else the Other Midwest Plan has going for it: business, community, and school-district buy-in. Focus on STEM subjects: science, technology, math. Accountability measures from top-to-bottom, including managed instruction and continuous improvement plans. Use of great practices from across the country. Assurance of on-the-ground quality, through plenty of support and professional development for teachers, out-of-school time programs for kids, inclusion of volunteer labor. Emphasis on kindergarten readiness. I took the devil's-advocate pose over and over, and got pretty satisfying answers back.
When what started as a 20-minute call ended at an hour, I thought: Wow, this Other Midwest Plan sounds great! ...
... But is it too good to be true?
The rapid dissemination of the cradle-to-career idea (which I've written about before) is encouraging, insofar as I think it's a good way to frame the movement to achieve legitimate outcomes for kids from tough backgrounds. But it's also a new path full of booby-traps.
A few questions that I think must be addressed:
- How does the laudable focus on educational achievement not get narrowed to outcomes in math and English (or, in a better world, math, English, and science)?
- How do you avoid imposing so much quantitatively-based accountability that you create (unfortunate but plausible) incentives to "teach to the test," or worse, manipulate data? How do you create broad, fair evaluations?
- We know that quality of teaching and adult-child interaction are so important in both K-12 classrooms and daycare. How do C2C programs assure that the consensual, progress-oriented message from movement leaders is not diluted at the grassroots level? More to the point, how do they plan to increase the supply of effective front-line practitioners, especially in an era of fiscal retrenchment?
- The C2C approach is warm, fuzzy, and consensus-oriented. It sometimes seems everybody's determinedly on the same page--or at least trying to get there. What if the consensus is wrong?
- How do you make room for (Business-Speak Alert) "process correction" or continuous reflection, when you're keeping a good face up to secure grant money and political will?
- Many of the major social advances in American history grew out of mobilization and politicization of people at the grassroots. People spoke up and got angry, and things changed (see Civil Rights, women's rights, the Voting Rights Act). Can a movement that is so--in some ways--bloodless have long-term impact?
- How do you keep funders and agencies working together? If funding pulled back at some point, or results were uneven between agencies, wouldn't agencies be tempted to steer their own ship again?
- Isn't this an idea from Rich White Men for poor people of color?
October 7, 2011
Jobs and Jabs: The Week's Links
Among the many, many, many remembrances, Ross Douthat's takes the form of an ironic, grudging concession that Steve Jobs was a revolutionary even for late-adopters like him. The last outpouring of response this big to a death I can remember was when Michael Jackson died. Speaks to the way media and consumer culture have crept into everyday life. The number of people who hadn't had Michael Jackson as soundtrack to some part of their life was like the number who haven't tapped at a sleek Apple product. Not that many.
Speaking of products, neat stuff happening at a tech school in Boston. Can't say I ever went to class in the ... Liberty Mutual Alternative Fuels Lab. But these kids do.
I happen to think Mormons of a certain age have plenty to answer for on their, um, policy platforms, but the loose-lipped accusations of a Rick Perry endorser only make Mitt Romney look more like the Proverbial Adult in the Room, and that's the kind Republicans like to nominate. Not sure how long this 10-gallon hat can stay afloat.
The bigger, more serious point, is how generally accusatory our politics have become. Not just the gaffes on the campaign trail, but all this un-American, un-Christian food-flinging. I just don't think this happened back in the day. Even back in my high-school days, when Clinton was fending off Whitewater and sex scandals, there was at least the shadow (well, sometimes more than that) of a basis for the attacks. Are the instant media the cause, or just a symptom?
Finally, I want comments. I'm not expecting 972 per post, but some would be great. I just changed the comments setting so all you need is a Google account to get in. Hop on board!
Speaking of products, neat stuff happening at a tech school in Boston. Can't say I ever went to class in the ... Liberty Mutual Alternative Fuels Lab. But these kids do.
I happen to think Mormons of a certain age have plenty to answer for on their, um, policy platforms, but the loose-lipped accusations of a Rick Perry endorser only make Mitt Romney look more like the Proverbial Adult in the Room, and that's the kind Republicans like to nominate. Not sure how long this 10-gallon hat can stay afloat.
The bigger, more serious point, is how generally accusatory our politics have become. Not just the gaffes on the campaign trail, but all this un-American, un-Christian food-flinging. I just don't think this happened back in the day. Even back in my high-school days, when Clinton was fending off Whitewater and sex scandals, there was at least the shadow (well, sometimes more than that) of a basis for the attacks. Are the instant media the cause, or just a symptom?
Finally, I want comments. I'm not expecting 972 per post, but some would be great. I just changed the comments setting so all you need is a Google account to get in. Hop on board!
October 5, 2011
NCLB Soup
If Law A guaranteed 100 percent student proficiency, but was only10 percent implementable, and Law Y shot for only 80 percent student proficiency but was 80 percent implementable, which would you prefer?
Interesting piece at The New Republic by Kevin Carey (Ed Sector) about the Obama Administration's tweaks to NCLB. Basically, takes the moon-shot "everyone achieves by 2014" mandate away while empowering teachers and schools and states to do the things NCLB didn't properly address, like helping students meet stable standards, teacher quality, authentic school turnaround.
Meanwhile, Carey casts a plan among some Republicans to back away from NCLB as long-term retreat from federal spending obligations masking as nostalgia for the good old days when the Feds kept their hands out of the schools.
As far as Obama is concerned, while I never worshiped him as The Second Coming, I voted for him, would do it again, and will do it again (short of some major shift in the political landscape leading to a sudden embrace of Mitt Romney ... oh wait, yeah, I'm voting for Obama). I share many reservations about his term, including some with the still-cohering Occupy Wall Street movement.
But he has initiated many "tweaks" that could have positive long-term impacts, like changing funding formulas for usually earmark-riddled energy and transportation sectors, this NCLB work, RTTT, and so on. In that sense he has been more manager than leader--despite the oratory skills we all know. Is it enough to be a President of "tweaks"? No, and that may spell doom for him come next November. But worth watching the long-term impacts.
Interesting piece at The New Republic by Kevin Carey (Ed Sector) about the Obama Administration's tweaks to NCLB. Basically, takes the moon-shot "everyone achieves by 2014" mandate away while empowering teachers and schools and states to do the things NCLB didn't properly address, like helping students meet stable standards, teacher quality, authentic school turnaround.
Meanwhile, Carey casts a plan among some Republicans to back away from NCLB as long-term retreat from federal spending obligations masking as nostalgia for the good old days when the Feds kept their hands out of the schools.
As far as Obama is concerned, while I never worshiped him as The Second Coming, I voted for him, would do it again, and will do it again (short of some major shift in the political landscape leading to a sudden embrace of Mitt Romney ... oh wait, yeah, I'm voting for Obama). I share many reservations about his term, including some with the still-cohering Occupy Wall Street movement.
But he has initiated many "tweaks" that could have positive long-term impacts, like changing funding formulas for usually earmark-riddled energy and transportation sectors, this NCLB work, RTTT, and so on. In that sense he has been more manager than leader--despite the oratory skills we all know. Is it enough to be a President of "tweaks"? No, and that may spell doom for him come next November. But worth watching the long-term impacts.
October 3, 2011
Reviewing Homework: Thoughts for the ESOL Classroom
The Usual Good Stuff from Coach G on the limits to reviewing homework.
Coach whistles teachers for two main offenses:
Correct, Collect or Act It Out?
How or whether to review homework depends on what the homework is for:
Let It Be
Is there ever a time to just let students review the homework, regardless of whether you know how well they did it? Trying to muster some words of wisdom ... yes. In an immersion language classroom, it's great. Remember that middle-school German teacher who just drilled you to death on grammatical forms? Guess what? You actually weren't learning as much as Ms. Mickeltickel told you you were. Rote drills have a place ... but a limited one.
Turns out that we develop a lot of language skills through "negotiating meaning." All those little phrases like "Repeat, please," "Excuse me," "Did you hear that?" "What's next?" "Can you help me?" "Okay," "Right," "Give me my stapler back!" And so on. In an immersion class, in small groups, students are forced to use a ton of this "small stuff."
Unless you're pretty sure everyone got the homework completely right, in which case there are plenty of other techniques to get 'em talking, taking five minutes to review the homework serves two purposes at once. And since review often occurs early in class, it's a good, low-stakes way for students to get their tongues and brains working in the language.
There's plenty more to say about homework review. Cold-calling. Breaking students into groups to review one section, then share out. Collecting homework for quality control and direct feedback. But the big questions to always remember are, What's it for? and in a language class, Can I use review to get kids talking?
Coach whistles teachers for two main offenses:
- Rotely reviewing and correcting problems: if everyone got a question (or all of them) right, teacher-led rehash is a waste of time and spark for student disruption.
- "Disc jockey" review, where they ask the students what questions to go over. Kids ask to go over questions they actually got right as a ruse to fool around, and the quiet kids never pipe up.
Correct, Collect or Act It Out?
How or whether to review homework depends on what the homework is for:
- Some homework's formative, helping students develop skills on the way to larger objectives, and it's probably a good idea to make sure it's correct. For that I'd heartily recommend Coach G's suggestion that you put answers on the board and let students work through their errors. Or my own ESOL-specific technique--see below.
- Some homework's preparatory. What do I mean? It's not just practice, but a building block for a classroom activity. A key in any language classroom is what's called "information exchange" tasks, where some students have information others need, and they speak in the target language to share that info. Bare-bones example: A homework could be, "Write 5 sentences describing yourself with adjectives." The students bring it in, a volunteer reads the sentences out loud (without saying the author's name), and in teams the students guess who the classmate is. For this sort of activity, I recommend you collect the assignment, help students make corrections over the next couple days, then do the activity. That assures the activity is based on legitimate input, not someone's error-riddled scribbling from the night before.
- Finally, some homework's performative. Students work on a big or small project, and the final homework assignment is to prepare it for presentation. No need to correct here (well, a peek over their shoulders is probably a good idea!). Let them get up (or get in groups) and act it out.
Let It Be
Is there ever a time to just let students review the homework, regardless of whether you know how well they did it? Trying to muster some words of wisdom ... yes. In an immersion language classroom, it's great. Remember that middle-school German teacher who just drilled you to death on grammatical forms? Guess what? You actually weren't learning as much as Ms. Mickeltickel told you you were. Rote drills have a place ... but a limited one.
Turns out that we develop a lot of language skills through "negotiating meaning." All those little phrases like "Repeat, please," "Excuse me," "Did you hear that?" "What's next?" "Can you help me?" "Okay," "Right," "Give me my stapler back!" And so on. In an immersion class, in small groups, students are forced to use a ton of this "small stuff."
Unless you're pretty sure everyone got the homework completely right, in which case there are plenty of other techniques to get 'em talking, taking five minutes to review the homework serves two purposes at once. And since review often occurs early in class, it's a good, low-stakes way for students to get their tongues and brains working in the language.
There's plenty more to say about homework review. Cold-calling. Breaking students into groups to review one section, then share out. Collecting homework for quality control and direct feedback. But the big questions to always remember are, What's it for? and in a language class, Can I use review to get kids talking?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)